Comparative Effectiveness of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccines Among Older Adults: Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis Using the GRADE Framework

INTRODUCTION

The mRNA vaccines mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 demonstrated high efficacy against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in phase 3 clinical trials, including among older adults. To inform coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine selection, this systematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis assessed the comparative effectiveness of mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 in older adults.

METHODS

We systematically searched for relevant studies reporting COVID-19 outcomes with mRNA vaccines in older adults aged ≥ 50 years by first cross-checking relevant published SLRs. Based on the cutoff date from a previous similar SLR, we then searched the WHO COVID-19 Research Database for relevant articles published between April 9, 2022, and June 2, 2023. Outcomes of interest were SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19-related hospitalization, and COVID-19-related death following ≥ 2 vaccine doses. Random effects meta-analysis models were used to pool risk ratios (RRs) across studies. Heterogeneity was evaluated using chi-square testing. Evidence certainty was assessed per GRADE framework.

RESULTS

Twenty-four non-randomized real-world studies reporting clinical outcomes with mRNA vaccines in individuals aged ≥ 50 years were included in the meta-analysis. Vaccination with mRNA-1273 was associated with significantly lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 0.72 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64‒0.80]), symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 0.72 [95% CI 0.62‒0.83]), severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 0.67 [95% CI 0.57‒0.78]), and COVID-19-related hospitalization (RR 0.65 [95% CI 0.53‒0.79]) but not COVID-19-related death (RR 0.80 [95% CI 0.64‒1.00]) compared with BNT162b2. There was considerable heterogeneity between studies for all outcomes (I2 > 75%) except death (I2 = 0%). Multiple subgroup and sensitivity analyses excluding specific studies generally demonstrated consistent results. Certainty of evidence across outcomes was rated as low (type 3) or very low (type 4), reflecting the lack of randomized controlled trial data.

CONCLUSION

Meta-analysis of 24 observational studies demonstrated significantly lower risk of asymptomatic, symptomatic, and severe infections and hospitalizations with the mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 vaccine in older adults aged ≥ 50 years.

Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) Triple Therapy Compared with Other Therapies for the Treatment of COPD: A Network Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing triple therapies (inhaled corticosteroid [ICS], long-acting β₂-agonist [LABA], and long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]) for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are limited. This network meta-analysis (NMA) investigated the comparative efficacy of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus any triple (ICS/LABA/LAMA) combinations and dual therapies in patients with COPD.

METHODS

This NMA was conducted on the basis of a systematic literature review (SLR), which identified RCTs in adults aged at least 40 years with COPD. The RCTs compared different ICS/LABA/LAMA combinations or an ICS/LABA/LAMA combination with any dual therapy (ICS/LABA or LAMA/LABA). Outcomes of interest included forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), annualized rate of combined moderate and severe exacerbations, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and SGRQ responders, transition dyspnea index focal score, and rescue medication use (RMU). Analyses were conducted at 24 weeks (primary endpoint), and 12 and 52 weeks (if feasible).

RESULTS

The NMA was informed by five trials reporting FEV₁ at 24 weeks. FF/UMEC/VI was statistically significantly more effective at increasing trough FEV₁ (based on change from baseline) than all triple comparators in the network apart from UMEC + FF/VI. The NMA was informed by 17 trials reporting moderate or severe exacerbation endpoints. FF/UMEC/VI demonstrated statistically significant improvements in annualized rate of combined moderate or severe exacerbations versus single-inhaler budesonide/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol fumarate (BUD/GLY/FOR). At 24 weeks, the NMA was informed by five trials. FF/UMEC/VI showed statistically significant improvements in annualized rate of combined moderate or severe exacerbations versus UMEC + FF/VI and BUD/GLY/FOR. FF/UMEC/VI also demonstrated improvements in mean SGRQ score versus other triple therapy comparators at 24 weeks, and a significant reduction in RMU compared with BUD/GLY/FOR (160/18/9.6).

CONCLUSION

The findings of this NMA suggest favorable efficacy with single-inhaler triple therapy comprising FF/UMEC/VI. Further analysis is required as additional evidence becomes available.

Efficacy and safety of first-line therapies in EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a network meta-analysis

Aim: To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of identified first-line therapies for patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with a focus on ramucirumab + erlotinib. Methods: In the absence of head-to-head studies, a Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted using randomized clinical trial data to evaluate first-line systemic therapies with erlotinib/gefitinib as the reference treatment. Results: For progression-free survival (PFS), ramucirumab + erlotinib was comparable to osimertinib and dacomitinib in the primary analysis. Conclusion: The analysis showed ramucirumab + erlotinib efficacy to be comparable to best-in-class treatment options for previously untreated patients with EGFRm⁺ advanced NSCLC. Registration information: PROSPERO ID: CRD42020136247.

Comparative Efficacy of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Versus Other Bronchodilators for the Treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β₂-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual maintenance therapies for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus other dual and mono-bronchodilator therapies in symptomatic patients with COPD.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (October 2015-November 2020) was performed to identify RCTs ≥ 8 weeks long in adult patients with COPD that compared LAMA/LABA combinations against any long-acting bronchodilator-containing dual therapy or monotherapy. Data extracted on changes from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score, rescue medication use and moderate/severe exacerbation rate were analysed using an NMA in a frequentist framework. The primary comparison was at 24 weeks. Fixed effects model results are presented.

RESULTS

The NMA included 69 full-length publications (including 10 GSK clinical study reports) reporting 49 studies. At 24 weeks, UMEC/VI provided statistically significant greater improvements in FEV₁ versus all dual therapy and monotherapy comparators. UMEC/VI provided similar improvements in SGRQ total score compared with all other LAMA/LABAs, and significantly greater improvements versus UMEC 125 μg, glycopyrronium 50 μg, glycopyrronium 18 μg, tiotropium 18 μg and salmeterol 50 μg. UMEC/VI also provided significantly better outcomes versus some comparators for TDI focal score, rescue medication use, annualised moderate/severe exacerbation rate, and time to first moderate/severe exacerbation.

CONCLUSION

UMEC/VI provided generally better outcomes compared with LAMA or LABA monotherapies, and consistent improvements in lung function (measured by change from baseline in trough FEV₁ at 24 weeks) versus dual therapies. Treatment with UMEC/VI may improve outcomes for symptomatic patients with COPD compared with alternative maintenance treatments.

Identification and mapping of worldwide sources of generic real-world data

PURPOSE

The demand for real-world data as supportive evidence to traditional clinical studies has increased in the past few years. The present study aimed to identify worldwide generic sources of real-world data and to assess completeness and suitability of selected real-world evidence (RWE) data sources to conduct prespecified research.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify generic (non-disease specific) sources of real-world data in Medline and Embase from January 1, 2010 to September 8, 2015. Data sources used in observational studies were identified and summarized based on their geographical distribution and the type of data. In the next step, the selected data sources were critically evaluated for their completeness.

RESULTS

A total of 10,069 identified publications were screened, leading to 2635 unique data sources across 102 countries. Europe had the maximum number of data sources (n = 1163) followed by United States (n = 578), and Asia, Middle East, and African Countries (n = 374). The most common type of identified data sources across all countries was structured data sources, ie, administrative databases and registries. Of the identified data sources, 300 were selected for further investigation. From the selected databases, ~50% had confirmed information on over 60% of the investigated variables, ~61% were suitable for epidemiological research, and 60% had possibility of linkage.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study applied a systematic literature review approach and identified available generic sources of real-world data worldwide, in addition to the United States and Europe, which are suitable for conducting pre-defined researches and support future RWE studies.

A Targeted Literature Review Examining Biologic Therapy Compliance and Persistence in Chronic Inflammatory Diseases to Identify the Associated Unmet Needs, Driving Factors, and Consequences

Abstract

Chronic inflammatory diseases (CIDs) represent a substantial clinical and economic burden to patients, providers, payers and society overall. Biologics, such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), have emerged as effective treatment options for patients with CIDs. However, the therapeutic potential of biologics is not always achieved in clinical practice, with results from studies examining the use of biologics in real-world settings suggesting lower levels of treatment effectiveness compared with clinical trial results. Using a targeted approach, this literature review demonstrates that compliance and persistence with biologic therapy is suboptimal and that this has implications for both clinical outcomes and treatment costs. The review identified a variety of predictors of treatment compliance and persistence, including increased age, female gender, presence of comorbidities, increased disease activity, longer disease duration, smoking, increased body mass index, higher biologic treatment dose, higher treatment cost and lower health-related quality-of-life scores. Patients often cited factors associated with medication delivery as a reason for non-compliance and non-persistence, and device-related improvements to treatment delivery were associated with higher rates of compliance and persistence. The articles identified in this review provide insights that have the potential to help guide the development of new solutions to improve disease management and optimize treatment regimens. This has the potential to benefit patients’ health by improving clinical outcomes and to reduce the burden to society by limiting the economic impact of patients’ disease.

Funding

UCB Pharma.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-018-0759-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A controlled trial of labetalol (Trandate), propranolol and placebo in the management of mild to moderate hypertension

1. Labetalol, a new drug combining alpha-and beta-adrenoceptor blocking properties, has been compared with placebo in a double-blind crossover study of a group of patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension (blood pressure 150/100 to 189/114 mmHg). 2. Labetalol and propranolol lowered blood pressure satisfactorily in the supine position, but labetalol reduced blood pressure more in the erect posture and following exercise and induced less bradycardia. Thus alpha- as well as beta-adrenoceptor blocking actions appear to contribute to blood pressure reduction. 3. Side effects attributable to labetalol were few. The effective dose ratio labetalol: propranolol was 2.5:1 (w/w). 4. Labetalol, a new form of hypotensive agent, merits further controlled assessment of its usefulness in relation to existing drugs.

Combined alpha- and beta-adrenoreceptor blockade in hypertension: a controlled trial of labetalol (AH 5158) compared with propranolol and placebo

1. Labetalol (AH 5158) is a new drug which has both alpha- and beta-adrenoreceptor antagonist activity. Labetalol has been compared with propranolol and placebo for the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension (150/100 to 189/114 mmHg), in a double-blind cross-over trial with three 10 week treatment periods. 2. Both drugs reduced blood pressures in nine of the ten patients who have completed the trial. Relative to placebo labetalol caused decreases in supine pressures similar to those caused by propranolol (average -10/-10 and -10/-9 mmHg respectively), with a greater effect on standing (labetalol -20/-19; propranolol -8/-12 mmHg; P less than 0-01) and after exercise (labetolol -27/-18 and propranolol -16/-14 mmHg). 3. Labetalol and propranolol caused a similar fall in supine pulse rate (-11/min and -13/min respectively), but there was less bradycardia on standing (labetalol -11/min; propranolol -18/min; P less than 0-001) and after exercise (labetalol -17/min; propranolol -23/min; P less than 0-001). 4. The average dose ratios of labetalol to propranolol was 2-4:1 (w/w). 5. These results suggest that the effect of labetalol on blood pressure involves both alpha- and beta-adrenoreceptor antagonist properties. 6. Further evaluation of labetalol is warranted as it may have some advantages in respect of producing less bradycardia, improved peripheral blood flow and less effect on airways resistance than 'pure' beta-receptor-blocking agents.